On Wed, 2020-03-04 at 21:28 +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:10:35 -0700
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu:
>
> > On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 08:29:50 +0100
> > Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Mauro's patch series <cover.1581955849.git.mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ("[PATCH 00/44] Manually convert filesystem FS documents to ReST")
> > > converts many Documentation/filesystems/ files to ReST.
> > >
> > > Since then, ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --self-test complains with 27
> > > warnings on Documentation/filesystems/ of this kind:
> > >
> > > warning: no file matches F: Documentation/filesystems/...
> > >
> > > Adjust MAINTAINERS entries to all files converted from .txt to .rst in the
> > > patch series and address the 27 warnings.
> > >
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-erofs/cover.1581955849.git.mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Mauro, please ack.
> > > Jonathan, pick pick this patch for doc-next.
> >
> > Sigh, I need to work a MAINTAINERS check into my workflow...
> >
> > Thanks for fixing these, but ... what tree did you generate the patch
> > against? I doesn't come close to applying to docs-next.
>
> I'm starting to suspect that maybe the best workflow would be to just
> apply the patches at docs-next keeping links broken, and then run
> ./scripts/documentation-file-ref-check --fix by the end of a merge
> window, addressing such breakages.
I'm not sure at all that that script will always do the
right thing with MAINTAINERS, but it seems to work OK
except for some renames where a .txt file was directly
renamed to a .rst file in the same directory where there
was a similarly named file in a different directory.
Likely the direct rename of a filename extension from
.txt to .rst should always be applied by the script.
Anyway, for -next as of today:
$ git diff --shortstat
64 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 116 deletions(-)
> There are usually lots of churn outside the merge window.
>
> Another alternative would be to split the MAINTAINERS file on a
> per-subsystem basis. If I remember well, someone proposed this once at
> LKML. I vaguely remember that there were even a patch (or RFC)
> adding support for such thing for get_maintainers.pl.
Yeah. get_maintainer.pl does work if the MAINTAINERS
file is split up a few different ways.
There was also a tool to do the MAINTAINERS split.
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/817857/
I doubt that would matter at all given today's tools and
the general mechanisms of maintainers renaming files and
not running checkpatch in the first place.
